I have only been a witness in a criminal trial once in my life. I was called by the defence, and I can say the questioning by the prosecution barrister was a somewhat harrowing experience, with the prosecutor coming at me with the same question several time from different angles. I know he was testing my evidence for truthfulness and probing for any untruths or inaccuracies. If I had been lying the prosecutor was going to find out, that's for sure. What should have taken five minutes, took half an hour. I can see why sometimes its better for the accused not to give evidence in their own defence, they might prove to be the star witness for the prosecution.

he was testing my evidence for truthfulness and probing for any untruths or inaccuracies.
Paul1405,
I don't know if there are any prosecutors here on OLO but I & others have always been able to sense your fibs !

Dear Banjo,

«According to Michael Naughton of the University of Bristol, under the adversarial system of justice:

"Criminal trials are not a consideration of factual innocence or factual guilt. They determine if defendants are ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ according to the evidence before the Court, governed by the prevailing principles of due process"»

If that was only an intellectual exercise, a game of chess between lawyers, then fine - the judge could then raise the arm of one lawyer and declare him/her the victor based on probability points. I would have no problem with that.

But don't they realise that they are playing this game with people's lives?
Don't they realise that they could destroy others, condemning an innocent person to a fate worse than death?

The results do not affect only the accused - but all the rest of us, innocent citizens that have nothing to do with the case or anything similar, we pee in our pants for fear that we could be the unfortunate next victims of the "justice" system.

Yes, I am aware that there are other dangers in life, but aren't there enough fires and hurricanes already that we need to top them up with man-made dangers?

.

Dear Yuytsu,

.

You wrote :

« If that was only an intellectual exercise, a game of chess between lawyers, then fine … But don't they realise that they are playing this game with people's lives? »
.

It’s not a game, Yuyutsu, it’s a very serious matter, and there’s no reason to think that judges, lawyers and members of a jury are any less aware of it than you and I. Nor is there any reason to presume they are lacking in humanity and compassion or are necessarily biased.

It is the duty of the judge to inform the jury clearly and precisely of what is expected of them and the basis on which they should arrive at a decision of innocence or guilt according to their personal conviction and conscience. It has nothing to do with a game of chess.

Naturally, the revelation of the truth, based solely on evidence and eye-witness accounts, is a formidable task. Perception of reality is not reality. And never can be. Even if the crime had been filmed and all the members of the court – judges, lawyers and jury – had witnessed the crime itself.

We perceive what we know and recognise, or think we know and recognise, and we interpret our perceptions according to our experience, understanding, prejudices and convictions.

The advantage of a jury is that, to a certain extent, it acts as a buffer to such inconveniences.

Until somebody comes up with a better idea of how to judge criminal acts, that’s about the best we can do. Though, as I indicated in my previous post to Loudmouth, I consider that, in its present form, justice is not accomplishing its mission as impartially as it should, in respect of sex crimes, and needs reforming.

Regarding your concern of somebody being wrongly condemned of a sex crime, naturally, the risk exists but it is extremely remote. In no way can it justify dissuading 81.1% of all sex crimes, including rape, from being reported to police, in Australia.

Anybody who has nothing to hide has nothing to fear.

.

.

Dear Loudmouth, Yuyutsu, ALTRAV and HenryL,

.

In the March quarter 2019, the average daily number of prisoners in Australia was 43,320 :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4512.0

However, I don’t think we should open the prison gates and let everyone out just because there might be some wrongly condemned prisoners among them.

But, logically, it seems that’s what we should do if we were to apply the sacrosanct principle :

« It’s better that 100 guilty men go free, than that one innocent man be wrongly condemned »

Of course, if we could identify the innocent prisoners, we would not need to release everyone.

But, apparently, we can’t. So, what do you suggest ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Regarding your latest post (I hope to soon find the time to respond to you former):

«But, apparently, we can’t. So, what do you suggest ?»

Keep in jail only those prisoners who are still reasonably considered dangerous to society. Release those who still pose just a small risk into home-detention. Free the others. Those who remain in jail should be given the voluntary option of euthanasia.

Prison is the most horrendous place, ESPECIALLY FOR THE GOOD AND PIOUS, for whom it is worth than death. I can perhaps understand, if not approve, the accidental killing of an innocent person, but not their imprisonment.

You may have heard the story of the two blonde women: one was desperate for money, so she kidnapped the other's boy as he was playing in the park, attached a note to the back of his shirt: "I have kidnapped your boy. Pay me $50,000 or you will never see him again", then sent him back to his mother. The mother read the note and was startled, so she returned the boy with the money and a note: "How could one blond do such a thing to another?" and so I am asking myself: "HOW COULD ONE HUMAN DO SUCH A THING TO ANOTHER?"!